Boston, Massachusetts -The Council of State Archivists submitted public comments to the Office of Management and Budget proposed revision of the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (docket OMB-2026-0034). 

The guidance impacts government-wide policies and requirements related to the management of Federal financial assistance including grants and cooperative agreements. As both a recipient of Federal grants and representative of the the government archives of the 50 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia, CoSA submitted comments and questions seeking clarification on the impact of the proposed changes for cultural heritage organizations across the United States.

For more information on the importance of government archives and their work, download and share CoSA's Government Archives are Essential Brochure. Find the full comments from CoSA below.

July 13, 2026

Office of Management and Budget

Submitted electronically via www.regulations.gov

Re:  Comment on the Proposed Rule, “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance”, 91 Fed. Reg. 32198 (May 29, 2026), Docket ID OMB-2026-0034, RIN 0348-AB88

I. Who CoSA is, and why this rule reaches us

The Council of State Archivists (CoSA) is a professional nonprofit organization of the official government records repositories of the fifty states, five territories, and the District of Columbia. CoSA members are the state-level counterparts of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); they perform parallel functions in preserving and providing access to government records that document the rights of citizens, assure government accountability, and connect Americans with their shared history.

CoSA submits this comment both on behalf of its members and as an organization with direct, recent experience administering Federal awards under these requirements. CoSA has been the recipient of National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) grants and Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) grants — and, as a recurring applicant for and recipient of Federal financial assistance, has administered awards subject to 2 CFR Part 200 and anticipates being subject to these requirements, as revised by this rule, on future awards.

Our federal system establishes a close and interdependent relationship among national, state, and territorial governments. Records are created, shared, aggregated, and exchanged across these levels, and a full representation of the nation’s history is not possible without a strong, collaborative relationship between the national and the state and territorial archives. The rules that govern Federal financial assistance directly shape that relationship and the capacity of state and territorial archives to carry out their legally mandated work.

II. The rule’s analysis omits the historical-records community

State and territorial archives depend substantially on the Federal awards this rule governs. In CoSA’s most recent published survey of state and territorial archives, “federal and other grants” were the second most prevalent funding source, reported by 65% of responding state and territorial archives, with the NHPRC and IMLS identified as the dominant federal sources.¹ Federal grant funds support core archival functions — arrangement and description, digitization and access, electronic-records preservation, and the regranting of funds to local repositories — across the country.

The rule’s Regulatory Impact Analysis organizes its assessment around subrecipient oversight, payment accountability, termination and suspension, and national policy reforms. Neither the Regulatory Impact Analysis nor the Regulatory Flexibility Act small-entity analysis separately assesses the rule’s effects on the historical-records community — its archives, its records programs, or the small local repositories that state archives fund. Because the proposed rule broadly revises the requirements governing all non-Federal entities that receive Federal financial assistance, is issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, and would reclassify the requirements of 2 CFR Subtitle A from guidance to binding regulation — renaming Part 200 the “Uniform Grants Regulation” and giving its text independent regulatory effect, so that future OMB amendments would apply government-wide without separate agency rulemaking — the rule’s effect on this community warrants analysis that the present record does not contain. CoSA offers the comments below to begin to supply it.

Consistent with its longstanding commitment to the professional integrity and political non-partisanship of government archives, CoSA offers these comments and questions on a factual basis, addressing the provisions most likely to affect the state and territorial archives community and the local repositories it serves. This comment addresses three matters: termination and suspension (§§ 200.340, 200.342); statutory and national policy requirements and pre-issuance review (§§ 200.300, 200.205); and the cumulative compliance burden on small subrecipients and their state archives pass-through entities (§§ 200.333, 200.332, 200.303, 200.305).

III.  Termination and suspension (§§ 200.340, 200.342)

(a) Factual context.  The proposed rule restructures § 200.340 to establish a standalone discretionary-termination ground: a Federal award may be terminated if it “does not effectuate program goals, Federal agency priorities, or the national interest as they exist at the time of the termination.” The rule also expands suspension authority, including a temporary suspension of up to 90 days. OMB describes its revisions to § 200.342 (objections, hearings, and appeals) as minor and clarifying: administrative hearing rights continue to attach to terminations for noncompliance, while for discretionary terminations the rule states that agencies remain accountable for review in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, as authorized by law. The discretionary-termination provision is similar to the existing authority at § 200.340(a)(4) of the 2024 regulatory text. This authority has already been used to end multi-year awards in the cultural sector mid-stream.

State and territorial archives undertake federally funded records work that is multi-year and cumulative — arrangement and description of large collections, digitization, and electronic-records preservation. When such an award is terminated mid-project, costs already incurred frequently cannot be salvaged: collections are left partially processed, descriptive work is left incomplete, and digital files may be left without a complete, accessible home. The Regulatory Impact Analysis treats the termination changes as a clarification with modest cost and does not analyze these stranded-cost effects in collections-based work.

(b) CoSA’s position.  CoSA seeks from OMB an analysis of the effect of the expanded discretionary-termination and suspension authority on multi-year preservation, processing, and description projects, and of the practical adequacy of the recourse available to recipients. Because administrative hearing rights under § 200.342 attach to terminations for noncompliance rather than discretionary ones, a recipient’s recourse for a discretionary termination is review in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims — a forum that may be impractical for a state archives or a small local repository to access. CoSA also seeks confirmation that the carve-out in § 200.340(b)(2) for block grants and statutory-formula awards applies to the cultural-heritage formula programs on which many archives rely.

(c) Questions for OMB.

1.  Did OMB analyze the stranded-cost and orphaned-collection effects of discretionary termination on multi-year preservation, processing, and description projects?

2.  For a discretionary termination under § 200.340 that a recipient believes rests on erroneous facts, did OMB consider the practical accessibility of review in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims as the recipient’s recourse — particularly for state archives and the small local repositories they fund — or whether an administrative avenue should remain available?

3.  How does the standard “the national interest as they exist at the time of the termination” provide recipients the notice needed to undertake multi-year commitments and the cost share these awards require?

4.  Does the § 200.340(b)(2) carve-out for block grants and statutory-formula awards apply to named cultural-heritage formula programs (for example, the IMLS Grants to States program)?

IV. Statutory and national policy requirements; merit and pre-issuance review (§§ 200.300, 200.205)

(a) Factual context.  The proposed rule revises § 200.300 to provide that Federal funds may not be used to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” specified categories of activity, with obligations flowing down to all subawards. It separately revises § 200.205 to add a pre-issuance review of awards by senior agency appointees implementing Executive Branch policy, and to remove the prior reference to providing opportunities for a diverse group of participants in Federal agency merit review. The Regulatory Impact Analysis characterizes the § 200.205 pre-issuance-review and merit-review changes as having “no perceived impacts.”

Arrangement and description — including the accurate description of collections that document particular communities — is a core archival function. The profession recognizes “reparative description” as a defined practice; the Society of American Archivists’ Dictionary of Archives Terminology defines it as the remediation of harmful or inaccurate description.² Federally funded records projects routinely identify and describe materials documenting the full range of a jurisdiction’s history — including the histories of Black, Native American, and other communities — as an ordinary part of processing government records. The proposed § 200.300 supplies no standard by which a recipient can distinguish prohibited “promotion” of a concept from the accurate description of, and provision of access to, records about that concept — creating uncertainty for recipients and a flow-down compliance obligation on subrecipients that the Regulatory Impact Analysis does not acknowledge.

The § 200.205 pre-issuance review raises a separate, practical concern. The provision would require review of discretionary awards by senior agency appointees. For programs administered by NARA and its NHPRC — a primary source of federal funding for state and territorial archives — this requirement would take effect at a time when the agency has lacked a confirmed Archivist of the United States since early 2025, and the NHPRC has therefore lacked its statutory chair.³ The Regulatory Impact Analysis does not analyze how the pre-issuance-review requirement would operate where the senior leadership it depends on is vacant.

(b) CoSA’s position.  CoSA seeks from OMB (i) recognition that arrangement and description, including reparative description, is established professional practice rather than advocacy, and a standard that distinguishes prohibited conduct from ordinary description and access; (ii) an analysis of the flow-down compliance burden these provisions place on pass-through entities and their subrecipients; and (iii) an analysis of how the § 200.205 pre-issuance-review requirement is to function for programs whose administering agencies currently lack confirmed senior leadership.

(c) Questions for OMB.

1.  How should a recipient distinguish prohibited “promotion” of a concept from a finding aid, subject guide, or descriptive practice — including reparative description as defined by the Society of American Archivists — that accurately describes and provides access to records about that concept?

2.  On what basis did the Regulatory Impact Analysis characterize the § 200.205 pre-issuance-review and merit-review changes as having “no perceived impacts,” given the review obligations these and the § 200.300 requirements place on recipients and subrecipients and the flow-down to all subawards?

3.  How is the § 200.205 senior-appointee pre-issuance review to operate for discretionary awards administered by agencies that currently lack confirmed senior leadership, such as NARA and the NHPRC?

V. Cumulative compliance burden on small subrecipients and their state archives pass-through entities (§§ 200.333, 200.332, 200.303, 200.305)

(a) Factual context.  State and territorial archives are not only direct recipients of Federal awards; many are pass-through entities that regrant Federal funds to local governments, historical societies, libraries, and volunteer-run heritage organizations. Providing regrants is among the most commonly reported activities of State Historical Records Advisory Boards nationally.⁴ ⁵ These subawards are frequently very small — on the order of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars — and are made to organizations with little or no professional administrative staff.

The proposed rule imposes several new obligations that flow down to these subrecipients at once: the prohibition of fixed-amount subawards and the requirement that all subawards carry financial reporting and return unspent funds (§ 200.333); a new basis on which a Federal agency may act, or direct a pass-through entity to act, where reputational harm to the Federal Government is implicated (§ 200.332); an expansion of E-Verify obligations to recipients and subrecipients, including the smallest subrecipients (§ 200.303); and new payment-request justification requirements, together with verification against the Treasury Do Not Pay system before disbursement (§ 200.305).

(b) CoSA’s position.  CoSA seeks from OMB an analysis of the cumulative administrative burden these provisions place on small subrecipients and on the state and territorial archives that administer subawards to them, and consideration of accommodations — such as proportionate requirements for very small subawards — that would prevent the smallest local repositories from being priced out of participation. The stated goal of this rulemaking includes reducing recipient burden; as applied to the regrant channel that connects state archives to local heritage organizations, several of these provisions appear to do the opposite.

(c) Questions for OMB.

1.  Did OMB analyze the cumulative administrative burden of §§ 200.303, 200.305, 200.332, and 200.333 on subrecipients receiving Federal subawards of less than $5,000, and on the state and territorial archives that administer those subawards?

2.  What is the basis for extending E-Verify, payment-request justification, and unspent-fund-return requirements to the smallest subrecipients — for example, volunteer-run historical societies receiving subawards of a few thousand dollars?

3.  How does OMB reconcile these cumulative obligations with the rule’s stated goal of reducing recipient burden, if their combined effect is to deter the smallest heritage organizations from accepting Federal subawards?

VI. Conclusion

CoSA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. The state and territorial archives community, and the local repositories it serves, depend on the Federal awards this rule governs, yet the rule’s supporting analysis does not address them. CoSA is prepared to provide survey data describing how its members receive and administer Federal funds, and is available to consult further as OMB develops a final rule. CoSA respectfully asks that OMB respond to the questions above and consider the accommodations identified for the historical-records community.

Respectfully submitted,

Joy Banks

Executive Director

Council of State Archivists

Sources and notes

¹  Council of State Archivists, The State of State Records, 2023 edition (FY2022 archives and records management survey), https://councilofstatearchivists.box.com/s/11h638j5qlmh0i11gq7203m4mz02dsd1.

²  Society of American Archivists, Dictionary of Archives Terminology, “Reparative Description.” https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/reparative-description.html

³  Public record of the NARA/NHPRC leadership vacancy: the Archivist of the United States position has had no confirmed occupant since early 2025; the nominee, Bradford P. Wilson, had a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on June 17, 2026 but is not yet confirmed; the Senior Advisor serving in lieu of an Acting Archivist resigned April 3, 2026. https://www.congress.gov/nomination/119th-congress/850; https://jmp.princeton.edu/news/2026/bradford-p-wilson-nominated-white-house-archivist-united-states; and https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2026/03/princeton-news-broadfocus-former-executive-director-james-madison-program-nominated-archivist-united-states

⁴  Council of State Archivists, The State of State Records, 2021 edition (FY2020 survey) — regrants among the top reported SHRAB activities, https://councilofstatearchivists.box.com/s/mklhbz71acxom4a8ucvdpz30iw4hsffq.

 ⁵  Council of State Archivists, The State of State Records, 2023 edition.

About CoSA

The Council of State Archivists (CoSA) is a nonprofit membership organization of the state and territorial government archives in the fifty states, five territories, and District of Columbia. Through collaborative research, education, and advocacy, CoSA provides leadership that strengthens and supports state and territorial archives in their work to preserve and provide access to government records. CoSA facilitates networking, information sharing, and project collaboration among its member organizations to help state and territorial government archives with their responsibilities for protecting the rights and historical documents of the American people.